“This is absolutely incorrect. Because taxes include income tax, capital gains tax, sales tax and many, many more”. “But your link only counts one small segment as taxes.You’re wrong and you dare not admit it.”

Like I said before Wow….have you ever been right about anything? Now go back and read the link:

“The vast majority of those earning over $1 million a year pay at a higher rate, which is why the average tax rate for this group, according to the Tax Foundation, is 29.1 percent of taxable income. And, yes, this number includes income taxes, payroll taxes and capital gains taxes.”

Now, what was that you were saying?….”You’re wrong and you dare not admit it.”

Most of your fellow fuckwitted ‘droids are simply hoping for CGIII – but that only makes me wonder how the other 109 sank without trace faster than the first two non-events .

I( must admit GSW, it has been a very instructive evening viewing what your brethren are actively wishing for. It’s like a hi-contrast filter on your collective gullibility. Including Anthony.

I just love the way you’ve all been hounding him about Muleer’s response to his last bout of hastily and expediently edited lunacy. Not.

You really should read the currently up to three pages of comments at Pope Montford’s Religious Delicatassen (except – I don’t link to denier trash, sorry!). It’s like Chritmas turkeys hoping for a nice sauce. They don’t even realise what their dearest wishes entail.

At least two-thirds of the area of the mainland US is experiencing moderate to exceptional drought, says the US Department of Agriculture’s Drought Monitor. Hot, dry conditions have caused significant damage to corn, soybeans, pastures and rangeland from California to upstate New York, the department said.

Corn and soybean crop ratings have worsened for seven weeks in a row, and are the lowest recorded since 1988, it said. Fifty-five per cent of the nation’s pastures and rangeland areas are rated poor or very poor.

Sadly, it looks like the deniers’ continued allegations of fraud against Mann are about to go to court, and they may find that the US legal system is also biased towards the UN’s MDGs or Al Gore or WHITEWASH!!!! or whatever it is you people believe this week.

I must say, the thought of Mann’s “trick” being tested in court does fill me with girlish glee.

But… but John. Don’t you realise that St Anthony- yes the (long, long ago) ex-TV weather poppet. (In the UK, think of an even more slimy Alan Partridge character with a bad moustache) – is widely expected to annouce the death of CAGW before lunchtime prayers on Sunday (PST)(sic) This is confirmed by appearing on the the Bishop’s site.. Presumably this Earth-shattering event is expected to dismiss AGW for once and for all.

Then on Monday morning, finally free of this catastrophic albatross, the US Congress can sit down and cogitate on extreme drought in some regions and excess flooding in others, and the meaning of it all in the face of a visibly melting Arctic

Perhaps some of the smarter ones will propose a Committee to investigate if the whole shebang could be explained by a theory that might provide an insight into how to deal with the core issues rather than flap about chasing symptoms.

Perhaps an international .body should be set up to collate the best scientific advice…. oh wait…

Anthony’s been going in for a lot of this lately. Remember his ‘Hail the Messiah’ response to the last Svensmark paper? (‘People will remember where they were on this day’, um, NOT, as the young folk do say.)

He really does appear to be hunkering ever further down in the bunker, while simultaneously repeatedly announcing that the latest super-weapon’s arrival will shortly turn the tide of the war…

WUWT has been a long running covert psychological experiment that was extended way beyond the original plans due to the astonishing data streaming in, and the peer-reviewed paper with the results and analysis is to about to be published in Nature?

Although nearly all domain experts agree that human CO2 emissions are altering the world’s climate, segments of the public remain unconvinced by the scientific evidence. Internet blogs have become a vocal platform for climate denial, and bloggers have taken a prominent and influential role in questioning climate science. We report a survey (N > 1100) of climate blog users to identify the variables underlying acceptance and rejection of climate science. Paralleling previous work, we find that endorsement of a laissez-faire conception of free-market economics predicts rejection of climate science (r ~ .80 between latent constructs). Endorsement of the free market also predicted the rejection of other established scientic findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer. We additionally show that endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy
theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin-Luther King or that NASA faked the moon landing) predicts rejection of climate science as well as the rejection of other scientic findings, above and beyond endorsement of laissez-faire free markets. This provides empirical confirmation of previous suggestions that conspiracist ideation contributes to the rejection of science. Acceptance of science, by contrast, was strongly associated with the perception of a consensus among scientists.

Copy-and-paste from the PDF left out some characters (seemingly all “fi” sequences) which I have tried to correct, but I may not have caught them all.

The rumors say that new BEST reanalysis will show that global average temperature has increased by 1.5 degrees Celsius since pre-industrial times and will suggest that most of the warming since the 1950s is the result of increased greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.

Oh dear.

Cos Watts sort of said that he’d accept whatever they published, even if it proved him wrong, didn’t he? I see he’ll be doing everything in his power to present a new FNITC to distract from this.

Still no futher info on the “Big announcement” heralded on WUWT. Whilst trawling Anthonys site though I came across an intriguing banner/link with the words “Only 1 month to go”.

It’s a link to a NASA prediction that by the end of summer 2012 nearly all the summer Arctic Ice will be gone. Video link (below) showing how this is ultimately communicated by factions in the alarmist community.

If you CAGW lot aren’t embarrassed by this then there is no hope for you. Everyone else has given up on this nonsense.
I’m sure “the Science says…” mantra will continue in your cubby holes under the stairs , but to the rest of us it’s all just bollocks pushed by “differently oriented” extremists.

Still no futher info on the “Big announcement” heralded on WUWT. Whilst trawling Anthonys site though I came across an intriguing banner/link with the words “Only 1 month to go”.

It’s a link to a NASA prediction that by the end of summer 2012 nearly all the summer Arctic Ice will be gone. Video link (below) showing how this is ultimately communicated by factions in the alarmist community.

If you CAGW lot aren’t embarrassed by this then there is no hope for you. Everyone else has given up on this nonsense.
I’m sure “the Science says…” mantra will continue in your cubby holes under the stairs , but to the rest of us it’s all just bollocks pushed by “differently oriented” extremists.

Well that was authoritative. That’s the best link you clowns have for this ‘prediction’, I gather?

If this is Watts’ ‘ta da’ he’s completely lost it, and fully deserves the ignominy that will be forever associated with his name.

Pa. Thet. Ic.

If you can’t distinguish between the BEST results proving the exact opposite of what the Denialati said an ‘independent’ assessment would prove, and one alleged comment by one researcher that was out by a few years as blown out by one news report, then there’s no hope for you.

But we knew that already.

In your little cupboard under the stairs this might seem like some sort of counter to an entire ‘skeptical’ team’s research project tearing up all your ‘it’s really cooling’ ”its all station siting ‘ it’s all fraud’ BS, but in the real world you have taken a hammering from which you will never recover.

I’d suggest those of you who are still anonymous bail out while you can, because the rest of you are going to endure as a byword for the most dire and venal stupidity…

“This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: “At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions.”

One scientist even speculated that summer sea ice could be gone in five years.

a NASA prediction

Were you born this stupid, or have you had to work at it? Do you really think anyone watching Greenland, the Arctic, the US, Chinees rainfall etc. right now is going to be impressed by some mouthbreathing squawking that ‘ha ha, the ice isn’t gone already’?

GSW hangs his hat on a particular speculation not coming true, to the exclusion of all the other evidence. I guess that’s a strong suggestion that GSW doesn’t have much support for his position.

There’s no point pointing out to GSW that it wasn’t a prediction that the ice will be gone – it was a speculation that “at this rate it could be nearly gone”. I guess it takes a bit of extra intelligence to understand the distinction between that statement and how GSW has represented it. Or an interpreter to tell you how to parse it.

And as others have pointed out, you have to be particularly stupid or in outright denial to be impressed by this particular cherry-pick whilst excluding the rest of the data.

It’s the way “alarming” stories have been reported bill. I certainly agree the “gone in five years” is ridiculous, it was back in 2007 as well. So why do a two page spread on the story? and in National Geographic no less.

It just feeds the credulous Numpties with info of no scientific merit whatsoever. The Nasa label, and it is paraded quite prominently, Hansen doing his doom and gloom tipping point catastrophy a bit later, is used to excuse these excesses.

At one point you could forgive people for not understanding the difference between what Nasa people say and the “Science”. The mantra continues however “The Science says…..” no matter how ridiculous the claims.

Based on its current rate of decline, when you expect the arctic to be ice free GSW? Or do you deny the extent is declining?

Trumpeting the failure of a cautious statement peppered with qualifying words like “could” seems like a remarkably dim short term strategy to me, especially in the face of record arctic ice loss. But what would I know. I’m sure it will begin cooling any day now. You had some cold winters a few years ago! Didn’t that prove it was all a scam or something?

Speaking of things people have said, here’s a great one by Anthony “Pants On Fire” Watts:

“I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. The method isn’t the madness that we’ve seen from NOAA, NCDC, GISS, and CRU. That lack of strings attached to funding, plus the broad mix of people involved especially those who have previous experience in handling large data sets gives me greater confidence in the result being closer to a bona fide ground truth than anything we’ve seen yet”

I personally look forward to Watts’ revelation, as no matter what it is it will massively contradict most of his comments past views on the subjects and, happily, no-one will care!

GSW, given your slavish devotion to angrily hitting F5 at WUWT at the expense of, oh, I don’t know, catching some of those record heatwave rays, what is your view of the BEST debacle? I’d hate to think you are a hypocrite here. Are you willing to accept whatever BEST produce? Or are you going to chuck a sobbing wobbly of denial like Watts so I can laugh at you (well, more)?

So scientists in recent days have been asking themselves these questions: Was the record melt seen all over the Arctic in 2007 a blip amid relentless and steady warming? Or has everything sped up to a new climate cycle that goes beyond the worst case scenarios presented by computer models?

In the United States, a weakened Arctic blast moving south to collide with moist air from the Gulf of Mexico can mean less rain and snow in some areas, including the drought-stricken Southeast, said Michael MacCracken, a former federal climate scientist who now heads the nonprofit Climate Institute.

Seriously, some conditional speculation, clearly labelled as such, from 2 NASA employees, in 2007, the record year (for now), at least for area. (Had any thoughts about volume lately? Didn’t think so.)

As against the BEST results. Talk about no contest.

Let me guess, if you get your head buzzing loudly enough with this dross the nasty science might go away, eh? And you’re all going to assist dear old Uncle Anthony in his pitiably transparent attempt to assuage his own cognitive dissonance, aren’t you?

Anyway GSW, I’m a bit thick. Could you link to where NASA officially made this statement – perhaps in the peer-reviewed literature – as opposed to speculation qualified with the word “could” by a man who was merely employed by NASA?

After all, you say it’s a “NASA prediction” but shockingly NASA seem to have made no such official prediction.

It couldn’t be that you are lying, could it GSW? Telling us little porky pies? Exaggerating your little story because, well, it’s no so impressive when it’s the unofficial opinion of one man that the arctic might be ice free by 2012? Gotta lie to build up your story do you, chump?

I’m not lying about anything John, it is what it is. There’s a track record of reporting “exaggerations”, the meaningful context/caveats or balance being omitted. Think Polar Bears, Frogs, Sea Ice, Himalayas, Climate Refugee’s, Sea level rise, we’ve been thru them all many times. Nobody in their right mind takes Hansens or Nasa’s “media pronouncements” seriously, it’s all become a bit of joke I’m afraid.

There’s a track record of reporting “exaggerations”, the meaningful context/caveats or balance being omitted.

Given that you apparently can’t distinguish between a speculation and a prediction, or between an outlier or a middle of the pack prediction, or between a highly certain prediction and a much less certain one, or between a cherry-picked point and the whole of the evidence, or between the validity of an a priori probability as it relates to the realisation of that probability, and perhaps even between the actual science and the reporting of it, you’ll forgive me if I don’t assume your judgement on that point is anwhere near valid.

And that’s without even pointing out the strong track record of the media under-reporting the level of various risks inferred from the evidence.

As I said, it’s all become a bit of a joke. The justification for printing “much faster than previous predictions” or “worse than we thought” statements has always been more for “alarm” than credence. National Geographic is on a par with the National Enquirer when it comes to reporting climate stories IMO, there’s a certain rigour lacking there and in other publications on the matter.

Oh, so now the National Geographic is a joke? So anything published in it hardly merits the fuss you’re trying to make about it then?

So, let’s recap; you have one anachronistic reference on an um, obscure news-channel based on a qualified contemporary speculation from a NASA employee in a publication (and out host, I might add) that you’re now comparing to the National Enquirer?

Well, that’s consistent with your ClimateGate standards, then! You know something, I’m not secretly quaking in my boots about this; this is the kind of pathetic counter-argument that only succeds in making me feel like I’m up against complete idiots!

Your argument appears to be unravelling pretty damn fast, don’t you think? In fact, it’s much worse than we thought.

Seriously, this is your Great Big New Text? Don’t you feel daft trying to peddle this pap?

And all this you think can anaesthetise the pain of BEST? Pretty soon you’ll be lost to The Stupid forever, you know…

There’s no point having a go at me bill, National Geographic printed the story, I didn’t make them do it. They chose to print to it, no matter how absurd it appeared then, and even more absurd now I’m sure you will agree .

Like you, I take NASA employees comments with a pinch of salt. Much quoted on Deltoid and RC as being the guardians of a scientific truth, but lacking even a glimer of credibility vis a vis “pronouncements” of impending doom.

The Climate Refugee’s relates to a UN prediction there would be 50million of them by 2010. It’s a stock denier “giggle at the loonies” conversation piece , you goldfish have bad memories.

Griselda, you need to link to a reliable sources when making claims. Merely repeating all the reconstructed denier memes you unconditionally believe in impresses nobody. You’re about as far from reliable as it gets.

“SRGJAN KERIM, President of the General Assembly, opened the discussion by saying that 11 of the last 12 years had ranked among the 12 warmest since the keeping of global temperature records had begun in 1850. Two points were significant: that climate change was inherently a sustainable-development challenge; and that more efforts than ever before must be exerted to enable poor countries to prepare for impacts because it had been estimated that there would be between 50 million and 200 million environmental migrants by 2010.”

Another lie from a lying liar! It starts off with one and they just snowball with you lot. You said NASA were making false predictions. NASA didn’t make an official prediction nor did anybody say what you claim they did.

So let’s briefly summarise what we know, shall we? Making up a false statement and then falsely attributing it to a scientific body seems like a pretty big lie to me.

Your attempts to weasel out by blaming the National Geographic are exceedingly lame.

And you still haven’t addressed the elephant in the room – the arctic sea ice extent is now alarmingly low for a planet which is meant to be not warming/cooling (please pick whichever is the popular meme this week).

As I recall, only one ever tried to respond, and that effort was so underwhelming I can’t recall enough to be able to put a name to the attempt.

A ‘Curtin’ perhaps?

Seriously, these deniers cannot stand the heat when, ‘reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled’, as Richard Feynman wrote at the end of hisChallenger Disaster report.

Time soon when Watts, Cardinal Puff, Nova and the sorry bag of supporting one time or would be scientists that aid them will really start throwing their toys around. It will not be pretty judging by what we have seen so far.

At the bottom of your press release from an “Informal Meeting on Climate Change and Most Vulnerable Countries”, are these very pertinent words:

For information media • not an official record

Because some Macedonian diplomat makes an unsupported speculation or some Taiwanese mystic exaggerates a NASA scientist’s very qualified statement, does not mean that everyone who is concerned about the very real risks of climate change buys into their nonsense.

That is the domain of group-think Watts-bots suffering from pathological psychological denial such as yourself.

Can you say, “projection”? Say it with me.

“I, GSW, am projecting my own cognitive inadequacies on others in order to feel better about my powerlessness in a threatening world I can’t understand.”

“does not mean that everyone who is concerned about the very real risks of climate change buys into their nonsense.”

I think there is some acceptance there, post the fact, that National Geographic and UN/UNEP were talking, to use your word, “nonsense”. Obvious to the rest of us at the time. Takes a little longer to filter thru to the dark, under stairs world of the Deltoids it would seem, the truth will out in the end.

Certainly it will, and already is, but will you be able to stand the bright light? No. You will all be scuttling and trying to hide under that same little rock with the likes of Watts (not the brightest spark given his name) and the other ‘roaches.

Based on its current rate of decline, when you expect the arctic to be ice free GSW?

Another question for the liar that he won’t answer is what the lowest extent of Arctic sea ice will be this summer and how close it will be to Zwally’s speculation. Zero isn’t a special value here, other than psychologically; the current low level of sea ice has significant impacts.

“I think there is some acceptance there, post the fact, that National Geographic and UN/UNEP were talking, to use your word, “nonsense”. Obvious to the rest of us at the time”

You’re still projecting. National Geographic didn’t exaggerate Jay Zwally’s qualified statement. You and the rest of you, which apparently on the authority of some crackpot who likely enough is your personal guru, exaggerated his qualified statement into some kind of oracular pronouncement.

Likewise, you are falsely attributing the poorly supported and unofficial opinion of Macedonian economist and diplomat as the official stance of the UN. Much less the UNEP to which it has utterly no connection other than UNEP making it clear, in the Der Spiegel article to which you link, that his opinion has no standing with UNEP.

I know you can’t be that stupid. What do you think might be causing you to identify with such nonsense. It couldn’t be ideological blinders, could it?

Another question for the silly little man – how many climate refugees are there?

I mean, seriously, you strident arseclowns claim ‘it’s obvious’ – it’s always ‘obvious’ to tiny minds, that’s one of their defining features – how many there haven’t been; but how many have their been?

Stressing that climate change should not be considered a distant worry, Guterres noted that a staggering 36 million people were displaced by natural disasters last year, of whom more than 20 million were forced on the move by climate change-related factors.

You’re going to say ‘none’, are you? Phhht – what are you, 12? That’s as pathetic as claiming ‘it’s cooling’ or that the temps are only a result of bad station siting or fraud. And I do mean pathetic – even you must have a glimmer of how infantile your arguments are

I know part of the joy of being a noisy wrecker is never having to do any hard work, but where’s your theory on the impact of climate on refugee numbers? Your concept of attribution?

I’m reading Christian Parenti’s Tropic of Chaos at the moment – you need not bother; your response, to save you the trouble of having dial out for it, as usual, is ‘sneer’ and ‘hurr hurr’ – where he travels the globe and talk to climate refugees and visits people in areas suffering from resource conflicts exacerbated by climate, particularly drought. There’s a hell of a lot of both, and just as the arctic ice will steadily approach the zero point you’re vapidly playing straw-man with, so will the figure of refugees.

And then exceed it. Let’s spend some time with the grown-ups again, shall we?

He cited a recent study by researchers at the US universities of Berkeley, Stanford, New York and Harvard that found climate change could increase the risk of civil war in Africa by more than 50 per cent in the year 2030 compared to 1990.

“More and more people are being forced to move,” he said, “Yet fewer and fewer people are free to move. Countries are becoming fortresses at a time when markets need people.”

Seriously – how stupid are you? Don’t you feel any shame to be associated with such intellectual bankruptcy?

Not to mention such blatant misanthropy. You and your fellow-travellers will be the first and loudest among the rabble to demand that the very refugees whose crises you’ve denied be excluded, incarcerated, or simply shot.

Just to avoid any opportunity for playing at semantics rather the facing the issues, the sentence at the end of para 7 should read ‘and just as the arctic ice will steadily approach the predicted zero point you’re vapidly playing straw-man with, so will the figure of refugees approach the predicted number.’

CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

Over at BisHill the cannon fodder is working itself into a lather about why WWWT has closed the shutters.

It’s a bit disconcerting to see how many apparently adult humans are capable of epic excursions including climbing the peaks of towering, forbidding Conspiratoria, and thence into Deepest Darkest Dunning-Krugeria.

Bishop Hill’s readers are having a meltdown over Muller since none of them know what the official line is yet.

The opinions oscillate from “so what” to “big deal” to “who cares” to “the warming in the last forty years has probably all been fraudulently adjusted anyway”.

These “skeptics” are fast exposing themselves as hypocrites. Poor old Bishop Hill heralded the initial announcement of BEST with a slavish post that culminated with the endorsement “Exciting times, I would say” while his erstwhile commenters rubbed themselves raw at the prospect of the edifice crumbling at long last.

Now expect a long stream of posts about how BEST is corrupt and wrong simply because the results of the evidence don’t align with the deniers’ ideological opinions on how the climate should act and anyway, isn’t it cold outside?

Yep, here’s some thorough documenting of the routine doctoring of those controversial Hockey Stick Graphs.

What’s that Skippdyduff, GooSeW, the Scandies, Batty, and the KarenCollective? You’re saying, well, hang on a minute, can’t quite hear… no, still not getting it… hang on… I see…um… nothing?

It’s all *crickets* from you, then?

Notice that until the central repositories of neural outsourcing have established their opinion, they don’t have one? You’d almost think that the volume and arrogance was inversely proportionate to their actual intellectual capacity, wouldn’t you? [smiles sweetly]

“My total turnaround,in such a short time, is the result of careful and OBJECTIVE analysis by the Berkley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with MY DAUGHTER Elizabeth.
Nice to see dad doesn’t argue with his daughter Aahahahaha. Say no more. Yeah, and we don’t need to bother to read past that.

Common Bernerd, are those young twins of yours girls.? Are you looking forward to the time of your life with them? Will you want to be a dad that your daughters look up to? Why are you spending so much of your valuable time here arguing, you should be babysitting.

(I’ll be looking forward to GSW complaining that most of the previous press coverage of climate science has been based on the IPCC reports which have clearly been too conservative, as has always been obvious for clear-eyed people like himself. And Anthony Watts will agree with his former self that BEST’s results will be the gold standard, and proclaim he is now convinced we have a real problem on our hands. And the anticipated porcine aeronautical maneuvers should be most enjoyable

Yea verily, for greater love hath no denier supertwat for his own colouring crayon version of contemporary science than he that shutteth down hisown blog (that beith 100% full of meaningless, worthless drivel at the besteth of times) for the whole weekend on account tof Tony telliing us all that he is sure his announcement: “will attract a broad global interest due to its controversial and unprecedented nature”. . And then proceedeth to advanceth science not one single ten billionth of one iota.

I think that sound in the distance is Drama Queen Watts'(file under: self-important jerkoff)’s name being erased from 10,000 media contact databases.

Wrong again, GSW. It was never even remotely plausible that Watts would close up shop because of a Muller editorial. Watts’ best strategy is to ignore Muller and pretend that he never said he would abide by his results. (My “He’s going to start telling the truth?” comment was, of course, sarcastic.)

As usual, Joe Romm knows exactly how to play this politically. I’ve been a bit bemused by the number of people on our own side who can’t seem to quite get that this is a very hefty stick indeed with which to beat the Deniers… Muller’s residual strawmen, quibbling about method, his arrogance, and the fact that we knew it all already are not the point. The point is to start whacking the opposition!

And, ho ho – Anthony ‘we never said it isn’t warming’ Watts’ ‘paper’* is…. yet another tired variation on the ‘it’s all station siting and fraud’ – i.e. ‘it’s not warming’ – theme!

So that suggests that Watts is asserting – if only by implication – that his analysis methodology is better than BEST? Interesting. No doubt his “we’re all scientific here” minions will be calling on him to demonstrate that…

Watts’ paper is effectively a last-ditch attempt to stay relevant. He’s put it out to try to counter Muller, and probably to try to get into AR5 (submissions close Tuesday) – and if it doesn’t make it in, then he has a conspiracy to milk.

The trouble for him is that he’s now put all of his cards on the table, as it were. The ‘draft’ is going to be mercilessly picked to pieces, and the remains of the carcass are not likely to find a grave in anything better than a vanity publication such as E@E or TWSJ.

Still, in anticipation of that, he can always claim that he’s being ostracised by the world’s professional scientists, and any lack of publication, plus omission from AR5, might fuel his project for years to come.

The rats will follow the piper out of town. It’s just a shame that they still get to vote in town decisions…

Watts can flail all he likes. He’s lost. The debate, credibility, momentum, control of the narrative, the lot; and this ridiculous little piece of theatre surrounding his risible, bathetic re-hash of a three-time losing case ain’t going to get any of it back. The Mighty Oz of Denial is, of course, just a pantomime clown behind a curtain…

Even his slack-jawed acolytes know it, which is why this is the most prolonged period of silence we’ve ever had from them.

You’ve lost, fools, and even you can’t hide from it, not really, even if you choose to double-down on the crazy – which, being true fanatics, most of you most likely will.

But the strident, dishonest rampage through a credulous media of 2009 was your hey-day, and, like the Arctic Ice you’ve all done your little bit to lose for us, it’s never going to come back to what it was.

“A paper published today in Geophysical Research Letters finds that sea surface temperatures [SSTs] in the Southern Okinawa Trough off the coast of China were warmer than the present during the Minoan Warm Period 2700 years ago, the Roman Warm Period 2000 years ago, and the Sui-Tang dynasty Warm Period 1400 years ago. According to the authors, “Despite an increase since 1850 AD, the mean [sea surface temperature] in the 20th century is still within the range of natural variability during the past 2700 years.” In addition, the paper shows the rate of warming in the Minoan, Roman, Medieval, and Sui-Tang dynasty warm periods was much faster than in the current warming period since the Little Ice Age. The paper finds “A close correlation of SST in Southern Okinawa Trough with air temperature in East China, intensity of East Asian monsoon and the El-Niño Southern Oscillation index has been attributed to the fluctuations in solar output and oceanic-atmospheric circulation,” which corroborates other papers demonstrating that the climate is highly sensitive to tiny changes in solar activity. ”

Thank you John but I consider that humans have affected climate indirectly since before the take up of widespread agriculture. Our hunter gatherer ancestors are plausibly considered to be behind the wipe out of large herds of huge herbivores – this would surely have had an impact on the dynamics of plant colonisation and thus the balance of atmospheric gases.

That’s what I just love about you AGW clowns. You can’t even figure out or decide for yourselves when abouts all this man-made global warming began. When did it start? Well you just don’t know do you. One bunch of you will say it began at the start of last century or the Industrial Revolution.and produce graphs and figures to that effect ,then another lot will say it was about the time of agriculture land clearances and then we have old wackos like Lionel blaming the caveman. All based on sound settled science you understand.
Aahahahahahahahahaha.

Meanwhile, PZ’s minions weigh in on Muller. Many aren’t exactly impressed by the weak foundations of his earlier non-acceptance, and many more aren’t impressed by his vaguely mealy-mouthed and somewhat denialist-pandering current acceptance.